OpenAI resets spending expectations, from $1.4T to $600B

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/20/openai-resets-spend-expectations-targets-around-600-billion-by-2030.html

by randycupertino • 5 months ago

225 186 5 months ago

cnbc.com

givemeethekeys• 5 months ago

So handwavy... 1.4T.. 600B. Pure marketing fluff to keep the hype machine going.

lumost2• 5 months ago

Didn't oracle take out real loans and spend real dollars based on this commitment?

dragonwriter2• 5 months ago

Wasn't it always an expectation, not a commitment?

If they didn't appropriately account for risk that the expectation would not pan out, well, that's on them.

lupire3• 5 months ago

How do you account for the risk of something that has ever happened before?

Yizahi2• 5 months ago

The bankruptcy couldn't happen to nicer company.

mnky9800n• 5 months ago

I too have reset my spending expectations down from $1.4T.

johnwheeler• 5 months ago

best comment

AvAn122• 5 months ago

A wise move.

kylehotchkiss2• 5 months ago

ugh lower the interest rates Jerome, I'll do anything to tank the economy until you finally do.

rhelz• 5 months ago

I have done my fair share of misunderestimating before, but I've never been off by that much.

nova220332• 5 months ago

and that's just my doordash order..

paxys2• 5 months ago

OpenAI is projecting that its total revenue for 2030 will be more than $280 billion

For context, that is more than the annual revenue of all but 3 tech companies in the world (Nvidia, Apple, Google), and about the same as Microsoft.

OpenAI meanwhile is projected to make $20 billion in 2026. So a casual 1300% revenue growth in under 4 years for a company that is already valued in the hundreds of billions.

Must be nice to pull numbers out of one's ass with zero consequence.

0cf8612b2e1e2• 5 months ago

I like the little blurb at the end which said that Codex had 1.5 million users. So, if you can get each of them to pony up a mere $186k a piece, they can hit those revenue numbers.

sunaookami• 5 months ago

Don't forget that Codex is free until March so the numbers are heavily inflated.

lm28469• 5 months ago

Codex had 1.5 million users

I'm three of them and I never spent a cent on any llms, I doubt I'm the only one

Betelbuddy2• 5 months ago

Its a circular economy...He is talking about the money moving from Nvidia to OpenAI and back to Nvidia. You got to go with the flow...

He is counting on hundreds of husbands: https://xkcd.com/605/

YetAnotherNick2• 5 months ago

How will Nvidia give revenue to OpenAI?

AtheistOfFail2• 5 months ago

Its a circular economy

Garbage in, garbage out, same as before.

mirekrusin2• 5 months ago

1.4T was estimate by gpt4/5, 600b by gpt5.3?

they'll probably fix it just like they did fix strawberry

their estimates will drop by ~20x which will be their max

as underdog in the race they'll grab fraction of even that

where are they planning to get that much money from? by showing adverts for 14h before you can prompt?

raincole3• 5 months ago

a casual 1300% revenue growth in under 4 years for a company that is already valued in the hundreds of billions.

Such a weird sentence. The correct causality should be: It's valued in the hundreds of billions because the investors expect a 1300% revenue growth.

AvAn122• 5 months ago

And if we all buy umbrellas, then it will start to rain??

jwolfe• 5 months ago

They said casual, not causal.

rchaud3• 5 months ago

How much money was WeWork supposed to bring in when they were valued at $50 billion and it dropped to $10b when they put out their S-1 and faced some public scrutiny for the first time? This happened before covid and the switch to WFH. Were their investors unaware of their actual finances?

paxys2• 5 months ago

Investors are valuing it at ~$500B, which already projects massive revenue growth. OpenAI is saying "actually we are going to grow 10x faster than that". And all of this is without bringing up the “profit” word.

mandeepj• 5 months ago

Oracle said something very similar, a short while ago. Besides a short lived peak, it didn’t do any good to their stock thus market valuation.

scoofy• 5 months ago

investors

The marginal investor does.

Guvante• 5 months ago

If investors expect Microsoft profitability that means their stock is worth 1/6th today what it will be in 5 years.

That is a cost of capital estimate of 40%.

Which points to investors not believing the company will be that profitable.

I am not saying investors don't think they will be profitable just they certainly don't believe that profitable.

ActionHank• 5 months ago

Consequences come later friendo.

re-thc• 5 months ago

and about the same as Microsoft
Must be nice to pull numbers out of one's ass with zero consequence.

Seems accurate?

What they are saying is if Microsoft ends up buying the rest of their shares then i.e. Microsoft's total revenue by 2030 will be more than $280 billion.

paul7986• 5 months ago

I was a paying customer ($20 a month) until AI prompted a layoff in my dying field that is web design and front end design coding. Now everytime chatGPT yells at me about memory i tell it fine Im just gonna use Gemini! I bet a lot of ppl are doing the same thing as both sit at the top of the iPhone charts.

tibbar7• 5 months ago

Today I got a feature request from another team in a call. I typed into our slack channel as a note. Someone typed @cursor and moments later the feature was implemented (correctly) and ready to merge.

The tools are good! The main bottleneck right now is better scaffolding so that they can be thoroughly adopted and so that the agents can QA their own work.

I see no particular reason not to think that software engineering as we know it will be massively disrupted in the next few years, and probably other industries close behind.

JohnMakin2• 5 months ago

It really doesn't matter how "good" these tools feel, or whatever vague metric you want - they hemorrhage cash at a rate perhaps not seen in human history. In other words, that usage you like is costing them tons of money - the bet is that energy/compute will become vastly cheaper in a matter of a couple of years (extremely unlikely), or they find other ways to monetize that don't absolutely destroy the utility of their product (ads, an area we have seen google flop in spectacularly).

And even say the latter strategy works - ads are driven by consumption. If you believe 100% openAI's vision of these tools replacing huge swaths of the workforce reasonably quickly, who will be left to consume? It's all nonsense, and the numbers are nonsense if you spend any real time considering it. The fact SoftBank is a major investor should be a dead giveaway.

javascriptfan692• 5 months ago

What was the feature and what was the note?

tapoxi• 5 months ago

Yeah but was Cursor using Claude? What's the moat that any of these companies have that prevents me from using another LLM?

akudha• 5 months ago

I have used AI a bit, like it for a bunch of use cases. But god damn, these numbers are so big. Gotta wonder, are the returns even worth it? RAM prices up, electricity prices up, hard disk prices up… Maybe this is the price to pay for “progress”, but it sure is wild

m4rtink• 5 months ago

Simple - they returns are not worth it. :-)

chrisandchris• 5 months ago

You're missing one point: they are just talking about revenue. Nobody said something about making profit.

mirekrusin2• 5 months ago

I think he meant for Anthropic?

TimPC• 5 months ago

OpenAI is a bet on LLMs replacing a large chunk of the labour force in whatever sector it’s best at replacing. It’s essentially looking to get companies to pay $5k-$10k a month to have coding agents replace the output of a single software engineer.

If the S-curve levels off below that level OpenAI will be an unsuccessful company.

parliament32• 5 months ago

I, too, can make $280B in revenue by 2030 (by selling $10 bills for $5 (as long as I bamboozle enough investors into giving me sufficient capital, of course)).

crystal_revenge• 5 months ago

I honestly don't think that sounds terribly outrageous.

OpenAI and Anthropic aren't building companies that aim to be API endpoints or chatbots forever, their vision is clearly: you will do everything through them.

The gamble is that this change is going to reach deeper into every business it touches than Microsoft Office ever did, and that this will happen extremely quickly. The way things are headed I increasingly think that's not a terrible bet.

guelo• 5 months ago

Doubling every year gets you to 1300% in 4 years. They have exceeded that for the past 5 years.

avrionov• 5 months ago

Don't forget that Anthropic also predicts similar revenue in in the next 4 years.

fxtentacle3• 5 months ago

If all the AI revenue projections were correct, then 1% of worldwide GDP would end up at AI companies. Or said differently: you buy a sandwich for $5 and somehow AI gets $0.05 out of that transaction.

jononor2• 5 months ago

This is basically what happens with the advertising/social media giants (Facebook, Google, etc) because everyone needs msrketing, and mobile companies (Apple, Google) because they handle payments.

rprend• 5 months ago

Honestly seems reasonable to me. ChatGPT alone will be be at least as valuable as Google, plus all the enterprise adoption around API use cases.

tempodox• 5 months ago

I don’t believe one word of what they say publicly.

tyre• 5 months ago

It’s interesting that they felt the need to leak this to the press.[0] Some investors or partners (or LPs, board members, etc. of those) are getting spooked by the spending plans and rightfully questioning if the return is there. Putting it in public my feel like a stronger commitment (though I doubt it.)

Even with the revised numbers, I cannot believe that they’ll have $280bn in revenue by 2030.

[0]: You can tell by the reason the sources are granted anonymity: because the information is private, not because they aren’t authorized to speak on the matter

carefree-bob2• 5 months ago

These numbers were always out of line with basic infrastructure constraints. People were talking like the US would build 50 new nuclear power plants in 10 years. And I believe we will not see $600B either, there are basic infrastructure, permitting, and power delivery limits.

0cf8612b2e1e2• 5 months ago

However, we are all going to be paying higher energy costs for these ridiculous infrastructure claims. Utilities typically price out energy three years in advance. If they were protecting for twice as many energy sinks, that represents an enormous amount of generation capacity which needs to be accounted for in projections.

I saw a report that previous capacity pricing was $28/MWh/day. Latest numbers have shot up to $300.

carefree-bob2• 5 months ago

Absolutely, and that's why we should be applying higher infrastructure fees to the permitting of data centers. The problem is that local governments want the tax revenue and are willing to screw over their constituents. This also goes in line with the decline of local newspapers, there is an epidemic of fraud and abuse of power happening in local governments across the country.

rchaud3• 5 months ago

It's not unforeseeable that the US demarcates Special Economic Zones without environmental oversight or labor regulations to speed up the construction.

conception2• 5 months ago

Nothing like superfund sites and The Jungle to feel like a true patriot again.

mike_hearn2• 5 months ago

That's why Elon is betting on datacenters in sun-synchronous orbit.

cmiles8• 5 months ago

This is more complicated than just hand wavy spending expectation resets. Other companies were taking these “commitments” and gearing up for capital investments to meet all that demand which is now vaporizing. That creates a big mess as the hype AI hype machine starts to unravel.

This looks very much like a careful move to deflate the bubble without popping it, but we’ve likely passed that point.

locusofself• 5 months ago

The market is spooked by capex projections generally. Interesting that Microsoft, despite some apparent hesitation in 2025, seems to be still going all in on AI spend over the next several years according to the most recent earnings call.

agentifysh2• 5 months ago

MS, GOOG bonds being sold to fund capex still put them green $/employee, they will survive of not thrive.

OpenAI...not so sure, they need an IPO soon while public still is high off the double bull run post 2020

oxag3n2• 5 months ago

We are at the end of the exponential!

90% chance in 6-12 months spending expectations drop to $0.

iSloth2• 5 months ago

Based on what? Each model so far has been noticeably better than the last, so I don’t see why the next wouldn’t be too?

oxag3n2• 5 months ago

"Can’t you just draw an exponential line on the curve?" - Dario Amodei, February 13th 2026.

But this time draw it for spending expectations.

janalsncm• 5 months ago

Even if that were true, it wouldn’t make the growth exponential. There are many other trajectories out there.

ryandvm3• 5 months ago

I don't get it.

A trillion here, a trillion there and all the AI companies are also telling us they're planning on wiping out 2/3 of jobs in the next 10 years? Nothing about the economics of the AI boom makes any sense.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but if we wipe out 2/3 of jobs with AI, who is going to be buying *all the stuff*?

Unemployed people aren't much of a demographic, and you can't just say UBI because that doesn't make sense either. You think the billionaires are going to allow themselves to be taxed heavily enough to support UBI just so that there's a market for people to buy stuff from them? That's nonsense.

Not trying to creep anybody out, but I just don't see a stable outcome for a society that doesn't need 2/3 of the population.

tgrowazay• 5 months ago

You think the billionaires are going to allow themselves to be taxed heavily enough to support UBI

They will have no choice. Proletariat must not be hungry and agitated. Free legal MJ for everyone!

irishcoffee2• 5 months ago

A gramme a day...

rustyhancock• 5 months ago

In fairness it's mostly Anthropic that is constantly banging the were taking your jobs drum.

Everyone else has been less explicit, likely because it's just not politically a good idea to keep pronouncing it.

It's part of Anthropics marketing though. Maybe to push the idea you can't beat us so join us?

lumost2• 5 months ago

Anthropic is running a similar marketing campaign as AWS/Devops tools which were trying to replace in-house IT. Pitch to the few that you can be 10/100x as productive and valuable on the hopes that they will push their organizations in this direction.

SV_BubbleTime2• 5 months ago

Nothing about the economics of the AI boom makes any sense.

what if… MBAs turned from economics to a religion and no one noticed?

fxtentacle3• 5 months ago

Unbelievable! Next you’ll tell us that Elon‘s self driving car promises were all just hype for the cult…

pluralmonad• 5 months ago

Econ has always been a bit faith based as it is.

tantalor• 5 months ago

The singularity is nigh

famouswaffles4• 5 months ago

I'm not saying it's not possible, but if we wipe out 2/3 of jobs with AI, who is going to be buying all the stuff?

Money is just a proxy for access to resources. If a machine that is capable of replacing almost all jobs is really created then money will matter much less than access to said machine. Taken to the extreme to make the point, if you had a genie that could grant your every wish, what would you need money for ?

sarchertech• 5 months ago

Yeah but what if that genie charges money for wishes.

oceanplexian• 5 months ago

If you had a genie that could grant your every wish, what would you need money for ?

The things that a magic AI Genie will never be able to give you no matter how far into the AGI/Singularity things get. Such as Land, Energy, Precious Metals, Political and Social Capital, etc.

SoftTalker• 5 months ago

Money is a proxy for the value of peoples' time. Since AIs are not people, they cannot create value.

xienze2• 5 months ago

OpenAI is not going to pay off my mortgage, it’s not going to replace my roof, it’s not going to fix my car, and so on. Money is still going to be very necessary for goods and services.

kylehotchkiss2• 5 months ago

UBI is a more of a convenient trick we use to suppress the part of our conscious that tells us "wiping out 2/3 of American jobs is Bad".

rchaud3• 5 months ago

Companies will save billions on those pesky health insurance premiums and payroll taxes...by paying for OAI tokens instead.

Then when the labor market is nice and hollowed out, the tokens will go up in price several-fold.

unglaublich3• 5 months ago

We're already there. Most of us have jobs that are just made up to fill the gaps after steam power and automation. In the future, we'll have jobs that fill up the AI gap. It's UBI, but more arbitrary so we can tell ourselves we're useful while group X is not.

ryandvm3• 5 months ago

Hmmm. I wonder if you get to choose between window maker or window breaker.

FridgeSeal• 5 months ago

I’ve seen no discussion about what the social consequences are going to be if a predicted 2/3rds of people lose their jobs.

I don’t imagine they’re pretty.

babelfish• 5 months ago

"It may be difficult to know what role money will play in a post-AGI world."

lupire3• 5 months ago

Tripling productivity is not the same as thirding jobs. Demand will grow. People enjoy products and services.

windexh8er• 5 months ago

Tripling productivity? Where? You can say this but where is this measurement being sourced. Every time I ask how LLMs can simply replace a real front desk assistant I get responses like: well that use case isn't viable because <enter excuse here>.

"People enjoy products and services." ???

WTF does that even mean? Folks are so deluded with all of these "right around the corner" solves that AI has in store that they fail to realize how out of whack the numbers game has played out. In any other reality people would be scrutinizing Sam Altman at every angle. But because of some magical AI sauce the incomprehensible numbers now magically make sense.

But for a lot of us: it doesn't. If you're going to claim hundreds of billions in revenue, just a few short years from now, you better have a really fucking great product today. Not in 6 months, not in a year - but right now.

SaaS has not been displaced. Workers have not been displaced (other than shifting their salaries to AI spend which does not equate to worker replacement). Where does madness end? The only thing that makes sense is an implosion that will ripple all the way through many other markets which will now take years to fix.

Yizahi2• 5 months ago

In the ex-USSR internet segment there was a saying on nerd forums - "Don't know matan(1), will convert you to methane". Just saying :) . It's not like billionaire sociopaths had ever any issues with "useless" humans. Peter Thiel even follows a modern neo-religion along those lines.

(1) matan - mathematical analysis, as a reference to a widely known and hard to learn university course.

nyxtom• 5 months ago

Welcome to late stage capitalism. Where non of the incentives have anything to do with helping people and reducing costs for things people care about - energy, food, healthcare, basic needs.

jacquesm• 5 months ago

That's the wealthy outlook: solve climate change and that pesky employment issue with those oh so annoying plebs in one smooth go.

lithocarpus• 5 months ago

"who is going to be buying all the stuff?"

Easy - a greater portion of the world's resources can go toward the luxury market for the wealthy. This is already the trend.

It's dark but certainly not impossible to have a smaller and smaller group doing all the spending and keep spending the same, and to keep stability by force using technology.

I want no part of it.

lbreakjai• 5 months ago

Luxury products can only exist at the margin of a broader economy. You can have luxury sports cars only if you have a market and an entire supply chain for millions of non-luxury cars.

duxup2• 5 months ago

As far as an AI no jobs catastrophe, I doubt they have any idea / plan any better than any rando person out there. They just think being first puts them in a good spot.

tim333• 5 months ago

I think the optimistic scenario is AI can do the jobs but humans don't become unemployed so the workforce is 1 lot of humans +2/3 that in AI. The humans are wealthier and can buy the stuff.

Like rather than Dilbert writing code, he gets promoted to pointy haired boss and manages an AI which writes the code.

Saig6• 5 months ago

The 1.4T commitments was over 8 years, not by 2030.

https://x.com/sama/status/1986514377470845007

blitzar• 5 months ago

the tweet has capital letters and punctuation - I doubt the authenticity of this post

louiereederson• 5 months ago

This article is bad. It is mixing up capex and opex. OpenAI is projecting more spending on compute through their income statement now than they were 6 months ago.

jjkaczor• 5 months ago

So are all the RAM, GPU and HD manufacturers going to honour their purchasing commitments?

kjkjadksj• 5 months ago

So does that mean they aren’t buying up all storage production capacity for the foreseeable future now?

ralusek• 5 months ago

Has AI transformed the economy radically? Yes.

Will it continue to transform the economy radically? Yes.

Will that translate to the model-makers somehow capturing the entire value of the transformed economy? No.

There were a few key moments that revealed this. When OpenAI initially declared "there is no moat," I wasn't sure whether to believe them. GPT 3.5 and 4 were so much better than the competition, it felt like them saying that they had no moat was some sort of attempt to avoid regulation or scrutiny. But then, lo and behold, Claude and Gemini caught up; there really was no moat.

But up until then, while it was clear that there was no moat around OpenAI, it was unclear if there was a moat around big tech. Mistral was meh. Even Meta's were meh. We also had no idea how much these models actually cost to run. It wasn't until the "DeepSeek moment," and especially once these open source models actually started being hosted on third party services, that it became clear that this was actually a competitive landscape.

And as has already been demonstrated, because the interface for all of these models is just plain language, the cost of switching models is basically non-existent.

random3• 5 months ago

"there is no moat" usually mean "we have no moat" or "we want you to believe we have no moat". There are always moats, like being directly in front of eyes and thumbs (Apple) or having extensive data (Google) along hardware production capabilities, datacenters, and tons of money.

tiahura• 5 months ago

Has AI transformed the economy radically? Yes.

AI made “basically zero” difference in U.S. economic growth last year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZHN0-ZNe_4&t=399s

agentifysh2• 5 months ago

as I've said previously, OpenAI will be bailed out by US taxpayers. This isnt just another bubble, its a bubble within a bubble.

Seeing the same setup in 2008 and now. Enjoy your subsidized $200/month codex because its going to go up in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46439545

chasd00• 5 months ago

first bullet from the link

After previously boasting $1.4 trillion in infrastructure commitments, OpenAI is now telling investors that it plans to spend $600 billion by 2030.

does the word "commitment" have a different meaning in this context? How do you cut a commitment >50%? OpenAI's partners are making decisions based on the previous commitment because.. OpenAI committed to it. I must be completely wrong because how does this not set off a severe chain reaction?

edit: as others have pointed out, the article is misleading. $1.4T was over 8 years or by 2034. 2030 is halfway to 2034 and $600B is not too far from half of $1.4T.

fxtentacle3• 5 months ago

I think TSMC laughed them out of the room when they announced the original numbers. So maybe there’s no reaction now because everyone already knew not to trust OpenAI’s promises.

fred_is_fred• 5 months ago

These were more like infrastructure suggestions.

raincole3• 5 months ago

how does this not set off a severe chain reaction?

Just like you and me, Sam Altman can say anything he likes to say. To pump the investors' confidence, to make the US administration believe he's serious about AGI, or just to make himself feel good. It's not legally binding in any way.

You should never read it as "OpenAI committed to..." but as "Altman said these words..." and words mean very little today.

gehsty• 5 months ago

It is insane that they have this little of a handle on their buildout. It makes the $600B feel even more empheral.

Imustaskforhelp2• 5 months ago

From another comment I wrote here but I am gonna paste a quote I found from Intelligent Investor (page 13) from Isaac Newton during the hottest stock of his time in his country, South Sea company.

The great physicist muttered that he "could calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of the people"

There seems to be a lot of madness happening in the world again as well. A lot of OpenAI claims make no sense except if we consider the world to have gone mad.

The bubbly nature of openAI and just doing whatever they think like doing with 0 regards to anything or everything including financials is a form of madness.

I was reading another comment and actually opened up the Intelligent Investor book to read the quote from there. I highly recommend that book although truth be told that I haven't read more than the first 50-100 pages as I quickly felt like passive investment is a great vehicle personally.

surgical_fire• 5 months ago

It doesn't matter.

Both numbers are fictional. No one really expects any of this to be true.

The people who claim to believe this are simply lying.

HackerThemAll• 5 months ago

Ponzi scheme. Scam. I don't trust OpenAI a tiny bit.

ares623• 5 months ago

you mean Altman scheme.

vfclists• 5 months ago

Does this mean RAM is going to get cheaper?

adverbly• 5 months ago

What do we think? Is this possible without AGI level breakthroughs?

If we see a continuation or even a slowdown of the current trend, the technology overhang, lagging productization, and catch up from the slow adoption of AI by businesses probably gets them part of the way there, but I don't know about 1000% growth at this point... Seems kinda like they're banking on another breakthrough no? And if they don't get the breakthrough, the downside risks such as a competitor of some sort destroying their margin can't exactly be ignored...

anizan2• 5 months ago

OpenAI doesnt have a single model in top 10 models being used on openrouter.ai

Thats a weekly metric on https://openrouter.ai/rankings flagship chatgpt 5.2 model is at #16

PMF is now evolving when competitor models are either smarter or cheaper.

mrkeen• 5 months ago

I hadn't heard of openrouter.ai. I have heard of OpenAI.

Is this like Windows and MacOS not being in the top 10 of distrowatch.com?

sadeshmukh2• 5 months ago

OpenRouter is the leading place to go to to get general purpose models of all sorts. It's fairly popular, and processes tens of trillions of tokens a year.

Garlef• 5 months ago

Could also just be a bias in the audience

btown• 5 months ago

OpenAI, frankly, benefits from the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" phenomenon.

And there's a reason that OpenRouter has an OpenAI compatible layer highlighted not deep in docs, but on their Quickstart page: https://openrouter.ai/docs/quickstart#using-the-openai-sdk

The number of projects accessing OpenAI directly, who might only reach for OpenRouter once an alternative is desired, is unknowable (since OpenAI doesn't share usage statistics), but likely meaningful.

conception2• 5 months ago

Well also because OpenRouter launched when OpenAI’s api was the only real game in town.

MeetingsBrowser2• 5 months ago

The number of tokens seen per model on OpenRouter is not a good measure of quality.

There are so many plausible explanations for why a particular model is or is not ranked in the top 10 by this metric.

Maybe people using OpenAI models are so happy that they don't care about other models and have no need for OpenRouter. Maybe OpenAI models produce fewer tokens, or are more expensive per token.

Your conclusion might be correct, but citing the number of tokens seen by OpenRouter is not very strong evidence.

anizan2• 5 months ago

If ChatGPT 5.2 were actually superior, developers wouldn't be overwhelmingly routing traffic to Gemini 3.1 Pro just 6 days after release.

I use openrouter.ai as the benchmark because it's the foundational API layer for innovator apps that are always the quickest to adopt new tech.

nova220332• 5 months ago

Wasn't most of this spending going to ORCL?

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/ORCL

Remember this press conference?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYUoANr3cMo

throw_rust• 5 months ago

They sure are humble for people who say they are building God.

xiphias2• 5 months ago

Am I the only one here who was amazed by the speed of improvement between 5.2-codex and 5.3-codex?

I feel that Sam is saying what investors want to hear, but the coding work it is capable of and how it improved with using the terminal (TerminalBench) in such a short time is something that I'm sure can't be seen by short term revenue projections. I'm sure the other AI companies are having the same speedups, but it's real.

The usual limit is of course the slop output that is not well modularized that makes it hard to do bigger things, and codex is terrible at refactoring into the right direction (it has no taste).

3x YoY growth in revenue is just not hard to imagine with this kinds of models, I think they have to get out with more expensive parallel working agents and higher-than-pro subscriptions, but it is coming I'm sure.

Ms-J• 5 months ago

ClosedAI isn't worth even a million at the end of the day.

Open source models catch up quickly and eventually even large models could be run locally.

duxup2• 5 months ago

I'm not convinced that companies venturing into the unknown really know more than anyone else, they just survive or don't. I've no idea what OpenAI is up to and honestly the public actions of Sam & Co seem like they feel kinda insecure about their position... whatever that position is.

OpenAI resets spending expectations, from $1.4T to $600B

Related Stories